Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/01/1991 SNaples, Florida, October 1, 1991 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in for the County of Coillely, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governinG board(s) of such special d~stricts a,~ have been created according ~:o law and havinG conducted business herein, met on this date at .'1:15 P.M. in $PEGIAL SESSION in Building of the Government Complex:, East Naples, Florida, with the ~ifollowing members present: CHAIRMAN: Patricia Anne GoodniGht VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe Richard S. Shanahan Max A. Hasse, Jr. Burr L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Wanda Arrighi, Deputy Clerk; Tom Olllff, Assistant the County Manager; Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney; Start Litsinger, Growth Management Director; Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities Administrator; Murdo Smith, Acting Parks and Recreation Director; Ken Pineau, Emer{jency Management Director; William Laver~:y, Barbara Cacchtone, Jeff Perry. Diane Holltng; E]ly Soto, and Mlche2.1e Edwards, Planners. Page October 1, 1991 em #2 ]~E~OLUTION NO. 91-694, APPRO¥ING THE PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDNENT FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS - ~iADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on 'September 6 and 17, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was continued from September 25, 1991, to consider an ordinanc.~ amending collier County Ordinance 89-05, providing for a Third Annual Update to the Capital Improvement Element. ~.!~ . Planner Lavetry noted tha'~ this is the second public hearing for subject ordinance. He po.[nted out that the final adoption of ':he '.1991 Capital Improvement Elem~:nt Annual Update Ordinance will be m~de !i/in March, 1992. He reiterated from the September 25, 1991, hearin(.i that separate motions are to be made on each element and a final ?'motion at the conclusion of the public hearing for the 1991 Growth 'Management Plan Amendments and one for the resolution transmittinG to the Department of Com~unity Affairs {DCA). ?Tr'affic Gir~lation Element Mr. Lavetry pointed out that he has provided to the Board a meno :from'Planner Holllng which transmits a modified Table 5 which is to. ~[replace the original found within the amendment package. .'.~ Planner Perry referred to the report provided to the Board (not ..Provided for the record) regarding levels of service adopted In the Growth Management Plan. He e~platned that the report identifies the ~,manners in which the levels of service are calculated and represented as well as the pros and cons c,f changing the levels of service. He ~.. advised that there are no staff requested amendments to the adopted levels of service which are current in the County's Traffic Circulation Element. ,~(:~? Commissioner Volpe commented that the subject report mentions a ~system wide approach tn terms of establishinG our levels of service wh~ ~s no~ ~e s~s~em currently used. Mr. Perr~ explained ~at ~e Page 2 October 1, 1991 uses a link-by-link setting of levels of service rather thsn istriot-wide system which is~ what Lee County uses. Commissioner Volpe pointed out that the preliminary report prc- 'vlded by the Consultant relates that Collier County should consider i~.dtstrict-wide system for determining levels of service which would allow additional time for concurrency. Mr. Perry acknowledged that if more time is requested to bring the County into concurrency a plan must be developed for lowering the levels of service and present it to DCA. He remarked that requesting an amendment to change the concurrency date to 1996 may be accepted by ' DCA and will allow the County a couple more years to provide funding for the required projects. Fie added, however, that there are projects that have been committed to and concurrency will be required by In response to Commissioner Volpe regarding maintaining the levels of service, Mr. Perry noted that the population growth and increased traffic rate are what determines the levels of service and are reviewed yearly. Assistant County Attorney Student pointed out that by requesting an amendment for an extension of time, DCA could impose the 9J5.0()55 .Regulation which would not be In the best interest to the County. Growth Management Director Litsinger concurred with Assistant ¥ Attorney Student and added that the regulation provides for' · very complex procedures. "~ Commissioner Goodnlght suggested that a review be made as to how much it will cost the County to comply with rules and regulations of ~owth Management and compare it to the amount of funding the State ~would withhold if concurrency is not met. Mr. Litsinger noted that the County-wide assessment distrlct pro- vides for financial feasibility of the GIE; however, the County has the option to find an alternative funding source. ·" Commissioner Volpe related that he is trying to find some flexibi- lity to the ~994 time limit. Assistant County Attorney Student ~ndi- cared that from a legal aspect an attempt to lower the levels of ~.~7 Page 3 October 1, 1991 ce would be a better proposal than trying to extend the 1994 con- currency date. Mr. Perry pointed out that next year an amendment will need to be ~made to request additional time because of the inability to commit to getting the work done by 1994. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Student Informed that result of non-compliance of the plan would be lost revenue sharing funds from the State. Commissioner Shanahen moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, to approve the Traffic Circulation Amendments to · i:the CIE. Commissioner Volpe recommended that staff provide to the Board ['additional informat[on regard:[ng adjustments in levels of service, the ~stem-wide approach, and the new rule as it relates to Collier y. Petition CP-91-1 Planner Edwards noted that the proposed petition had been con- ?'~inued from the September 25, 1991 hearing. She indicated that the potition proposes an amendment to the future land use text under th~ ~ urban designation section which would provide language to allow 'support medical facilities within a quarter of a mile of hospitals ma3or treatment centers that p]~ovide treatment of all types of ~ ~nJuries and traumas. She explained that the Plan currently restricts ~the placement of support medical facilities within a quarter of a mile of existinG hospital and ma3or treatment centers. She pointed out that there is a current proposal to locate a new medical facility ~within the County, and under the current language support medical ~facilities would be prohibited within a quarter of a mile. She noted ?i.that the ability to locate support medical facilities within close ~[ ~oximity to a hospital or major treatment center wlll strengthen the community health care services. She added that G~oup~ng of support ~ medical facilities with hospitals or ma3or treatment centers would be }i&~'more efficient manner ~n which to serve the community. Page 4 ~" October 1, 1991 - Xn answer to the question posed at the September 25, lg91, hearing, Ms. Edwards informed that a definition of a hospital or major ;'~reatment center would be a medical center which offers primary and ,~urgent care treatment for al] types of Injuries and traumas such as the Marco Urgent Care and the. Golden Gate Urgent Care. Ms. Edwards iprovtded to the Board the specific language proposed for the amendment as. well as the definition requested. '4~ : Commissioner Hasse pointed out that there are two urgent care cen- ters located in Golden Gate. Ms. Edwards clarified that the urgent center located on Coronado Drive qualifies as a major treatment center and the emergency facility on C.R. 951 would not qualify. After some discuss~on as to the difference between the two factlit~[es, !'>Ms. Edwards related that if the facility on C.R. 95! qualifies und~r definition provided then :it would be considered a ma3or med]ca] ~'treatment center. Ms. Edwards explained in answer to Commissioner Volpe's concerns ~that the quarter of a mile is a distance criteria, however a suppcrt facility would have to meet the compatibility criteria before it would allow to be built or property rezoned in the case of a residential area. Ms. Barbara Caw]ey of W~lson, Miller, Barton, and Peek stated that proposed amendment does not change anything that is currently in the zoning code or the Growth Management Plan except allowing support medical facilities to be placed ad3acent to new major medical facili- itles instead of only existing ones. She emphasized, however, that a i.~doctor's office could not be located in a residential area because of ~>the compatibility criteria. She added that all zoning requirements ]iwould have to be met before a support medical facility could be built. .She noted that the intent of the proposed amendment is for the con- venience of the public. i,',:~:~I Commissioner Shanahan moved and seconded by Comm~esionor Saunders, !tO approve PetSt~on CP-9I-! as a Plan amendment. Commissioner Volpe question~d whether there was to be a mandato]'y October 1, 1991 r~q~trement that a support facility had to be approved concurrent with the approval of a hospital o]r major treatment center. Ms. Cawley advised that by requiring concurrent approval the Board is limiting it ~?jto one user. Commissioner Hasse asserted that he does not want to imit .to one user. !~,~:'~" Commissioner Volpe asked how the quarter of a mile i:~ measured? Edwards informed it is measured from property line to propert1, i line. · . Commissioner Hasse indicated that measuring from the property line not a valid method of measurement for this Issue. Ms. Cawley clarified that the support facility cannot be built before the major medical facility; however, it can be built con- -currently. Upon call for the guestion, the motion carried 4/1 (Commissioner opposed). Petition CP-91-2 Planner Soto advised that the subject petition is to request an amendment to the text of the activity center sub-district of the Land Use Element. She stated that the applicant proposes flexibility tn the activity center boundaries. She indicated on ~':th'e display map where the applicants property is located on Marco Island on North Collier Boulevard and Bald Eagle Drive. She stated that the proposed amendment would allow for a flex provision to the aC.ttvtty center boundaries. She noted that the activity center sub- ? dt'strtct has two existing flex provisions. She Informed that the petitioner's proposed flex provision would address the smaller parcels that do not qualify for the two existing flex provisions. After ,!staff's analysis, she advised that four parcels throughout the County ~ave been Identified which total 4.63 acres that would benefit from proposed flex provision. She added that the petitioner's property ;t~.one of the four parcels. :";[ In response to Commissioner Hasse0 Ms. $oto noted that of the other three parcels one is located in North Naples on Pine Ridge ~osd Oil L;6 ~.~.:i Z 70 Page 6 October 1, 1991 U.S. 41, another on U.S. 41 and Airport Road, and the other on Marco Island on San Marco Drive and South Barfield Drive. She cited that the petitioners parcel is also subject to the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance. She commented that staff recommen.fled language other than that proposed by the applicant and on September 5, ~' : 1991, the Planning Commission approved staff's language. Contssioner Goodnight left the room at this time. A discussion ensued regarding a question Commissioner Volpe po,3ed about an agenda item discussed earlier in the day about the 75% rule 'which is one of the existing flex provisions provided in an activity center sub-district to which Planner Cacchlone clarified that the does not address the issue the proposed amendment addresses the parcels in question are very small in size and do not £teet : the 75~ rule. She noted that the petitioner has agreed with staff's !k:proposed language. i",' Co~missionar Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and[ carried 4/0 (Commissioner Goo~ight not present), to approve CP-91-.2 · with the language as outlined by staff. Future Land Use Planner Cacchtone informed that the Planning Commission recom- mended approval of all the proposed changes to the text with one )ti0n where they proposed additional language. She noted that the .,first amendment is to Policy 4.4 to change the time frame for the ' Access Management Plans from 3991 to ~993. She advised that the new Policy 4.6 regarding the economic element is requested to be deleted with the intent to be added back ~nto the ~992 CIE. She continued with the amendment to Policy ~.8 which is to make the language in the (i Plan consistent with the Group Housing Ordinance adopted in April, 1991. She related that Policy 5.11 is new and is requested pursuant to Policy 3.1K which requires the County to develop an amendment to Its Plan providing all the compatibility exceptions granted as a 'result of the zoning re-evaluation. She informed that there is an Page 7 October 1, 199! 'amendment to the Density Rating System which w111 make the language i consistent to the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance adopted in November, 1991. She reported that the amendment to the Commercial Under Criteria addresses the second of the three aspects it contains iwhich changes this aspect to read, "five percent of the level of ser- vice C design capacity"; therefore, providing a more efficient mea:~ure ~/for the level of service on a road and the actual capacity for that i'i,~road. She advised that the proposed amendment to the Activity Cen':er .,.~,Sub-district will specificall'f designate interstate activity cente:?s ~and a corresponding amendment w~l] be made to the map in Appendix ;%. She noted that an amendment to the Agricultural/Rural Designation ~111 i-allow for asphalt plants to be placed tn rural areas with the con- dition of a provisional use which will require an amendment to the ~ ZoninG Ordinance setting forth the criteria to be included in that provisional use. Commissioner Haese left the meeting at this time. Assistant to the County Manager Olliff clarified that this amend- ment does not perta]n to the ]'ural estates area. Assistant County Attorney Student interjected that the references made to ordinances throughout the amendments rather than list the spe- :cific criteria from the ordinance is a declston staff has made for · submittal purposes, even thou[lh DCA may bring this to the Gounty's tlon. iii,.~ Ms. Cacchione disclosed that the last amendment to the Future I,and ~i Use Element is to amend the Estates Designation which will remove existing language that is no longer pertinent. ,'i'.. Ms. Cacchione concluded that the Planning Commission did recommend "~pproval of the Future Land Us.e Element except for the item under Commercial Under Criteria. She explained that the Planning Commission voted to retain the language providing eJther/or in terms of either ten percent of the level of service capacity of the road or ::"-'.'five percent of the average daily traffic. She asserted that it is 'staff's recommendation to amend the language to use only five percent Octobe:r 1, 1991 the level of service capacity of the road. Co~uatssioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and carried l/0 (Commissioner Hamer not present), to approve the amend- merits presented regarding the Future Land Use Element and use stafff's recommendation regarding Couuaerctal Under Criteria. · /Future Land Use Maps Planner Cacchione advised that an amendment is required to th(: Future Land Use Map to reflect the Immokalee urban designated area to the newly adopted Immokalee Master Plan. She advised that the second !/amendment refers to Plantation Island and in referring to a display map Indicates the change to the urban designation which will add a parcel of land to Plantation Island. She noted that the Public Facility Map has been amended to include new public facilities as well 'i:as the Natural Resources Map to include the new purchases by the County. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and carried 4/0 (Commissioners Hasse not present), to approve the amend- merits presented rellardtng the Future Land 9se Maps. Immokalee Area M_a_s_t_~.r Plan Planner Edwar-!s advised that the amendment to the Low Residential ~'Dlstrtct Text is to clarify the Intent to require multi-family dwellings to be in the form of a PUD in order to be permitted within i,,the Low Residential District. She explained that the Amendment to the ~,~. !?Commercial District within th,~ Commercial Designation of the Land Use nation Description Secti(,n is to provide criteria for future development within the Commercial District along S.R. 29 and for .! ! future development within the Commercial District along Jefferson lue. She provided language to the Board (also provided for the record) reflecting the recommendation by staff for this Amendment. She identified the amendment to the Commercial Development within ii~ Planned Unit Development Land Use Designation Text as changing crt- i;i teria c. to allow commercial zoning or development no closer than 1/4 mile from the nearest elementary school within a Neighborhood Cente~ Page 9 October 1, lggl which will make it consistent with all other spacing criteria in the Plan. She informed that the amendments to the Immokalee Area~. Master Plan Future Land Use Maps Include amending the legend to provide the note, "This map cannot be interpreted without the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan;" and amending the boundaries of the Commercial designation along Jefferson Avenue. She f~mphasized that all changes identified for the Immokalee Area Master Plan have been :~'.apprpved by the CCPG. She pointed out that a~ letter has been received (provided to the Board and for the record) from property owners in the Immokalee area who object to changing the residential zoning along Jefferson A~,enue, Flagler Street, and Escamb:[a Street to commercial. Commissioner Goodnight advised that at the hearings held in Immokalee on August 12, 1991, the Board gave direction to staff to change the subject sectior!tKo commercial from residential. Commissioner Shanaban ~¢,ved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and cartled 4/0 (Commissioner Hasse not present), to approve the amen~- merits to the Immokalee Area l~aster Plan Element and the chan~es to its maps. Golden Gate Master Plan In response to Commissioner Volpe, Planner Cacchtone advised that the Golden Gate Master Plan i:) an adopted ordinance and amendments can considered regarding it. Planner Soto presented amendments to the Golden Gate Master Plan ~k. and noted that the first amendment simply corrects the numbering .~seqxlence for the Land Use Desi~.]nation Description Section on pages ~ 1, 118, 21, and 23. She informed that the amendment to Section 1.B.3., !.page 23, Commercial Under Criteria is to change the language to read, in excess of five percent uf the level of service c design capa-- ! ..city on abutting streets." She noted that the amendment to add a recreational facility under the Estates mlxed use designation :'.{ .i: .!. has :been withdrawn. .':?.:; ... She commented that the amendment to Section C, Page 10 October 1, 1991 e 30, Provisional Uses, proposes language which will allow two par- cels totaling 5 acres to be utilized as provisional uses. She cited ?~th&t the last proposed amendment is to the Adult Congregate Livin(.! :Facilities language found on page 31 of the Plan which will make it i~'/'i. consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Co~mtaaloner Shanaban moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunder~ and ?,carried 4/0 (Commissioner Hasse not present), to approve the proposed chan~es by staff to the Golden Gate Master Plan element. Sanitary Sewer Facilities Sub-element Assistant Utilities Adm~nistrator B]oetscher commented that the 'changes made in the subject sub-element to the text and maps are basi- cally the same as made in the Potable Water sub-element. He noted that the amendments made to the Goals, Objectives and Policies are for ~larification purposes which includes amendments to Objective 1.1, Policy 1.1.1, Policy 1.1.3, Pollcy 1.1.4, Pollcy 1.1.8, Policy 1.4.4, Policy 1.4.5, Objective 1.5, Policy 1.5.1, and Policy 1..5.2. ' Co~asioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and leatried 4/0 (Commissioner Hasse not present), to approve the amend- ments proposed by staff to the Sanitary Sewer Facilities Sub-element. Potable Water Facilities Sub-element Assistant Utilities Administrator Bloetscher reiterated that the /same changes for the sewer element's text and maps have also been made for the water element. He specified the amendments to include Objective 1.2, Policy 1.2.1, Policy 1.2.3, Policy 1.2.4, Policy 1.2.6, Objective 1.4, Policy 1..4.4, Policy 1.4.5, Policy 1.4.6, Policy .4.?, and Objective 1.5, Policy 1.5.1, Policy 1.5.2 In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bloetscher declared that there has been no change to the level of service for water or sews]:, but added that this is being monitored. "~' Commissioner Shanahah moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Hasse not present), to approve the amend-- ~:,!.ments proposed by staff to the Potable Water Facilities Sub-element. Recreation and open Space Element Page 1 1 October 1, lgg! Acting Parks and Recreation Director Smith informed that the spe- cific amendments are provided in the subject element of the Management Plan Amendment" dated September 25, 1991. He noted i!i'::: that the proposed amendments to the subject element reflect changes to the community park impact fee maps. He pointed out that there is an .amendment referencing the increase in population estimates and (~q~ired facilities standards for the increase. He continued that an · :amendment reflects updated costs in construction, based on actual construction costs and consulting engineering estimates. He informed that there is one amendment to change the Olympic Pool facility to a ~icompetitive swimming pool in order to reduce the cost. Me added that there is an amendment to provide for a new community park description. Commissioner Shanahan moved, Seconded by Commissioner Saunders and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Hasse not present), to approve the amend- ments proposed by staff to the Recreation and Open Space Element. Conservation and Coastal Mana~lement Element Emergency Management Director Pineau stated that the amendment ~the subject element of the "199! Growth Management Plan Amendment" dated September 25 1991 provides for elimination of moneys for a Contingency fund in the event of a disaster from this element since it covered under six other areas of the coastal high hazard area. He POinted out that the contingency requirement elimination is recom- mended by staff and the CCPC. ~/.. Commissioner Volpe commented that with this elimination there is a 125~ shortfall in case of disaster. Assistant to the County Manager ~lliff explained that reserve contingencies are available in each fund and to encumber this particular amount of money for this reason is not in the best interest of the County. Commissioner Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Hasse not present), to approve the amendment proposed by staff to the Conservation and Coastal Mana~em,~nt Element. Assistant County Attorney Student a~vised the Board that a motion to approve the total Plan Amendments to be ~ubmitted to the DCA for Page 32 October 1, 1991 preliminary review ls ~required. She added that notice need~ to be made for the second public hearing for these amendments. ~[ Commissioner Goodnight ii~formed that the second public hearln{l to consider the final Plan Amendments will be held in March, ]992. ~J?.~i Con~es~oner Shanahah mo~,ed, seconded by Comm~ssJonsr Saundsr~ and ;~?carr~ed 4/0 (Commissioner Haf,se not present), that the Growth Managemen~ Plan ~en~ents be approved. Co~fsstoneF Sh~ moved, seconded by Co~tss~oner Sa~deFs~ and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Has~se not present), that the transmittal 'letter to the Department of C:ommunlty Affairs for the proposed Growth Mmna~ment Plan Amendments be, approved, thereby adopting Resolution il-694. Page 13 October 1, 1992 ]:ten #1 91-94, AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 89-05, PROVIDING !:FOR A THIRD ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT - ADO}~ED DiSCUSSiOn of this item took place under Item #2. Mr. Lavetry requested tha'C the Board make a separate motion which will adopt the Third Annual Capital Improvement Element. He clarified ~his action is a requirement of the Adequate Public Faclltt¥ Ordin,~nce adop~ on an annual basis an updated ordinance. 'Oo~iss~oner Saunders mow,d, seconded by Oommissioner Shanahah and ;."carried 4/0 (Commissioner Hassle not present), that the Ordinance numbered and titled below be itdopted and entered Into Ordinance Book No. 47: ORDINANCE 91-94 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 89-05, AN ORDINANCE ENACTING AND ESTABLISHING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PURSUANT ~:0 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPHENT REGULATION ACT OF ~985 AND CHAPTER 9J-5, FLORIDA ADMINISTRAT~VE CODE, MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE; BY CORRECTING, UPDATING, AND MODIFYING CERTAIN COSTS, REVENUE SOURCES, SUPPORTING POLICIES, AND THE DATES OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES ENUMERATED IN THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS IN FISCAL YEARS 1991/92- THROUGH 199.5/96; PROVIDING FOP, SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Commissioner Volpe reminded staff to begin looking at alternatives funding under the Traffic Circulation Element. i~.I :! i. ,,,,, ~'.i:-: There being no further bus~ness for the Good of the County, the imeeting was adjourned by Order of the Cha1~' - Time: 7:20 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL PATRICIA ~NNF. GOODNIGHT% CHAIRMAN S!.; presented ~. '!::' . '~,,~.. )roved by the Board on or as corrected Page 14